F35 cost goes up.

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 19:22:11 -0000, "TJ"
wrote:


"Charles Gray" wrote in message
news


Only reasonable, since you have to add stuff to an airframe to make
it carrier worthy, in addiiton to other improvements. To use it the
other way around, either all you do is take some bits off, or just
leave them as is. (I recall some German F-4's at an airshow that
still had the arresting hook.).


The hook is used for runway arrestor landings. The same way as
Luftwaffe/Marineflieger F-104s, Tornados had/are fitted with hooks.

TJ

Ah. Thank you. So, what than are the major structural differences
between a navy F-4 and an airforce design?

Charles Gray wrote:

: Only reasonable, since you have to add stuff to an airframe to make
:it carrier worthy, in addiiton to other improvements. To use it the
ther way around, either all you do is take some bits off, or just
:leave them as is. (I recall some German F-4's at an airshow that
:still had the arresting hook.).

Are you sure it was an arresting hook and not a 'short field' hook,
which is much lighter in structure?

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

Chad Irby wrote:

:In article ,
: Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: Paper airplanes always look good. I'll wait until they actually have
: the thing designed completely and are bending metal. Any bets that
: it's heavier and has shorter legs than the current paper says?
:
:Not really, but it's certainly not going to miss the target by enough to
:lose 1/3 of its range. Things have changed a bit for aircraft design
ver the last thirty or forty years - it's not that hard to get a close
:estimate of weight and performance for new aircraft now.

Want to bet? And what is that "over 600 nautical miles" combat range
(for ALL F-35, apparently) predicated on? The only range statements I
see on FAS for this aircraft are pretty much 'hand waving' sorts of
answers.

: Funny that the Navy intends to keep a mix of F-35C and F/A-18E/F then,
: wouldn't you say? Particularly with the Super Hornet in the 'heavy
: lift strike' and 'tanker' roles.
:
:It's a case of "well, we have these older strike planes with a lot of
:hardpoints on them, and we're not going to obsolete a five year old
:aircraft while it stil works in a lot of places."

I would not be surprised to see the F-35C fail to meet original design
targets for range and payload in a carrier environment.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

In article ,
Fred J. McCall wrote:

Charles Gray wrote:

: Only reasonable, since you have to add stuff to an airframe to make
:it carrier worthy, in addiiton to other improvements. To use it the
ther way around, either all you do is take some bits off, or just
:leave them as is. (I recall some German F-4's at an airshow that
:still had the arresting hook.).

Are you sure it was an arresting hook and not a 'short field' hook,
which is much lighter in structure?

All of the F-4s at George AFB back in the 1980s (F-4E and -G models) had
the same arrestor hooks I see in photos of Navy and Marine F-4s. Pretty
serious piece of metal, too... here's a photo that shows the general
size of it:

http://www.b-domke.de/AviationImages/Phantom/1333.html

I don't know if I ever saw a Phantom with anything other than the
standard hook at George.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article ,
Fred J. McCall wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:

:In article ,
: Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: Paper airplanes always look good. I'll wait until they actually have
: the thing designed completely and are bending metal. Any bets that
: it's heavier and has shorter legs than the current paper says?
:
:Not really, but it's certainly not going to miss the target by enough to
:lose 1/3 of its range. Things have changed a bit for aircraft design
ver the last thirty or forty years - it's not that hard to get a close
:estimate of weight and performance for new aircraft now.

Want to bet? And what is that "over 600 nautical miles" combat range
(for ALL F-35, apparently) predicated on? The only range statements I
see on FAS for this aircraft are pretty much 'hand waving' sorts of
answers.

Figuring out range estimates are fairly straightforward, since drag and
engine fuel flow are reasonably well defined. If they stuck better
engines into the F-18, they'd probably get better fuel efficiency, too
(the modified versions they're using are nice, but not *that* nice).

The F-18 also has to deal with the increased drag of all of those
external stores and fuel tanks. That makes a *huge* difference in range.

I'm just wondering why you think it's so outrageous to expect a much
newer fighter to have much better fuel efficiency...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby wrote:

:I'm just wondering why you think it's so outrageous to expect a much
:newer fighter to have much better fuel efficiency...

I don't think that. I also don't have a diseased faith in simulation,
since I used to write them. You can predict lots of things, but you
don't really know what's going to happen until you put a few thousand
hours on an airframe under operational stresses.

We'll see what the real operational range is with the bays full of
weapons and no external tanks. So far, all the numbers I've seen
amount to hand waving.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

In article ,
Fred J. McCall wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:

:I'm just wondering why you think it's so outrageous to expect a much
:newer fighter to have much better fuel efficiency...

I don't think that. I also don't have a diseased faith in simulation,
since I used to write them.

But you should have a fairly concrete faith in aerodynamics, especially
with an airframe that's already *flying*.

You can predict lots of things, but you
don't really know what's going to happen until you put a few thousand
hours on an airframe under operational stresses.

You don't need a few thousand hours on an airframe to figure out the
fuel usage. It's a fairly simple thing called "math."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message

We'll see what the real operational range is with the bays full of
weapons and no external tanks. So far, all the numbers I've seen
amount to hand waving.

The Navy just bought another 210 F/A-18s, so they may agree with you, Fred.
(EW)

In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message

We'll see what the real operational range is with the bays full of
weapons and no external tanks. So far, all the numbers I've seen
amount to hand waving.

The Navy just bought another 210 F/A-18s, so they may agree with you, Fred.
(EW)

The contract for 210 more Super Hornets is just for part of the original
plan, not an additional buy. The first contract was for 222, this one
is for 210 - less than the 538 they were going to buy for a while, and a
lot less than the 1000 or so they were originally going to purchase.

The F-18 is still going to be pretty useful as a bomb truck, and can be
modified (EA-18G) into the followon Prowler replacements we're starting
to need. The new models also have enough total fuel capacity (when
kitted out) to allow them to be used as a tanker with self-defense
capability.

The FA-18E/F isn't an F-35 replacement, it's a replacement for just
about everything *else* except COD planes and helicopters... and it
costs $57 million a pop, more than the F-35's Navy variant.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby wrote:

:In article ,
: Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: Chad Irby wrote:
:
: :I'm just wondering why you think it's so outrageous to expect a much
: :newer fighter to have much better fuel efficiency...
:
: I don't think that. I also don't have a diseased faith in simulation,
: since I used to write them.
:
:But you should have a fairly concrete faith in aerodynamics, especially
:with an airframe that's already *flying*.

Final F-35C aircraft are already flying? Since when?

: You can predict lots of things, but you
: don't really know what's going to happen until you put a few thousand
: hours on an airframe under operational stresses.
:
:You don't need a few thousand hours on an airframe to figure out the
:fuel usage. It's a fairly simple thing called "math."

Yes, but what you CAN'T predict is what you're going to have to change
to make the thing actually work in real service. Those changes will
impact many things, including range, payload, fuel load, etc. It's a
fairly simple thing called "reality".

To listen to you, test flight programs are totally unnecessary.
Sorry, but our present reality seems to strongly indicate otherwise.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn